Absolute Integrity Allows Whistle Blowing
Corruption can not be contained without encouraging and protecting whistle blowers
It is true. However whistle blowing is not for the faint hearted and the un prepared. Various studies have shown that whistle blowers are subjected to 1. Isolation & humiliation 2. Formation of anti-you" group 3. Organizational stonewalling 4. Questioning one's mental health 5. Unusually close observation of what one says and does 6. Vindictive tactics to make one's work more difficult or insignificant 7. Talk about so called generous severance packages 8. asssasination of one's character 9. Disciplinary hearings before one has had a chance to address one's concern and 10. Possible suspension Taken from my husband's letter dated 22/11.06 addressed to Chief secretary. Wrote again in his letter to Chief Secretary on 27/1/07 that … I have directly experienced 3,6,9 and have indirect knoweldge about 7 & 10 But this should not discourage any one but an understanding of these prepares him to face the challenges more effectively
|The requirement of every government servant to work with absolute integrity implies whistle blowing is allowed and hence whistle blowers have to be protected. The Draft Public Services Bill gives a very weak support to whistle blowers. State Services officers are left to the mercy of their respective governments RTI Act also requires ammendments to to help whistle blowers.|
Immediately after the death of Sri Dubey because of the issue raised by his supporters in the Supreme Court, the Government of India issued a circular to giving some protection to Whistle Blowers. I also learnt that the State Governments were also asked to take similar measures. My husband repeatedly requested the Chief Secretary to take action on the directions given by the Government of India in view of the serious issues raised by him and the threats he received both directly and indirectly . Instead of taking action, the Chief Secretary sent a letter calling for my husband’s explanation totally ignoring the serious issues raised by him. I also learnt that the Draft Public Services Bill does not automatically become effective unless State Governments notify it. This is unlike the RTI Act which became effective throughout the country without giving choices to the States. Public opinion should be built to enact Public Services Act on the same line, as majority of the people use the services of the various State Agencies. Also there is a need to provide better protection to whistle blowers than what is contemplated under the Draft Public Services Bill, as is apparent from the problems my husband is facing. Even the provisions under the Right to information Act, will have to be modified to make it more clear for persons seeking information on the ground of threat to them. Denial of information immediately to a person claiming threatned and allowing simple fine to be paid later, can not be deterrence and it should be treated as a criminal activity and the punishment should also be as for similar criminal offence. As persons who willfully deny information do not mind paying fine.